217 / 494
216
CAVEAT RE: FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED CRIMINAL
OFFENCES INCLUDING EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS
9.5.
We have eschewed making definitive findings of fact in relation to
allegations of extra-judicial killings and other criminal offences for four reasons.
(i)
The Commission was not a court of law and, even though
we permitted cross-examination of witnesses, we were not
in a position to apply all the exacting tests of proof and rules
of evidence such as would apply in a court of law.
(ii) In nearly all of the cases, there was no positive proof of
identification of alleged wrongdoers.
(iii) The security forces adduced no evidence of possible
defences to allegations. To that extent, we would not have
heard both sides of the issue. It would therefore be
inappropriate to make definitive findings of fact on the
evidence of one side only. However, in reaching our
conclusions, we paid regard to evidence which was
unchallenged.
(iv) The Commission was made aware that Independent
Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) is currently
investigating some, if not all, of the very matters on which
we heard evidence. In those circumstances, it would also be
imprudent for the Commission to appear to be foreclosing
those investigations by making definitive findings of fact.
Nevertheless, we could not abdicate our responsibilities to enquire
into those matters and indicate, at least
prima facie
, what the evidence seemed
to suggest on a high balance of probabilities. In the result, where the evidence